Slashdot Mirror

For context, I'd recommend reading the whole chapter.

-cmh

Yeah, I already know about this. Some dumb ass put a little piece of paper in my apartment door one day that read "spychips.com Rev 13:16-18". As you might guess, Revelations 13:16-18 is that oh so happy and all too oft quoted section about the number of the Beast.

I find this crap so banally boring. I mean, lookit--Revelations itself is chock full of stuff that you could spin into whatever apocolyptic message you want to. The fact that people are so pathetically boring as to only focus on a couple or three passages is at least as depressing as the fact that they feel the need to make up apocolyptic crap in the first place.

Oh well. By the way, if you're high or tripping sometime and you really want to freak yourself out, go read Revelations. Whole thing is whacked out on the weirdness. And you don't even have to get a bible, you can get as many translations as you want from http://www.biblegateway.com/ .

Government isn't something that Christians should worship, and it isn't our friend, but it ultimately serves a positive purpose and Christians are directed to submit to it. (A large part of Romans 13 deals with this.)

You're right that our governments are increasingly taking the place of God, but just because that's true doesn't mean that the institution of government is in and of itself a bad thing. Romans was written when the government was Rome.

Yeah, I'm just a stupid athiest and stuff, but doesn't this make Jesus' sacrifice, well, worthless? I mean, if he were truly 'God,' as is claimed, then his sacrifice was really nothing. 'Sacrifice' means giving something up; what did Jesus give up, if all He did was go up to heaven to stand bside His Father, casting judgement and hell upon all who do not believe in Him?

Re: 'Sacrifice' means giving something up; what did Jesus give up...? The claim is that what he gave up was unity with his father. That is, the father and the son are one in spirit, but the Son suffers disunity with his father (that's the idea behind that whole "Why have you forsaken me?" (Psalm 22:1) (Matthew 27) quotation that Jesus recites while being crucified). Since the father is the source of all life (and good, and such), the son is made to suffer the pain of death in the form of disunity with the source of his life.

Re: "...if all He did was go up to heaven to stand bside His Father..." The idea behind this is that if his death had been just, then it would have been the final word on the matter, but since his death was by his own choice as an act of mercy (a death by proxy for people who had sinned), it wasn't un-just to overturn the sentence (as it would be for someone who justly deserved death). Note that that doesn't un-do the sentence, it just ends it -- as if you pardoned someone who was on death row that you found out wasn't guilty of the crime... they still served the time, they just didn't have to serve it "forever."

Re: "...casting judgement and hell upon all who do not believe in Him..." Hell isn't actually related to the judgement (I know that's an odd sounding claim, but the bit that describes the whole hell thing is pretty unambiguous (Rev. 20:12-15):

(12)And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Another book was opened, which is the book of life. The dead were judged according to what they had done as recorded in the books. (13)The sea gave up the dead that were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them, and each person was judged according to what he had done. (14)Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. The lake of fire is the second death. (15)If anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.

Notice that everyone is judged -- people who do believe in him and people who don't. Also notice (in 15) that the criterion for "the lake of fire" is whether one's name is written in "the book of life" which is a way of saying something like "Jesus's little black book." The one set of books is what you've done, the other book is whether you believed in him. So you can be a rat-bastardly Christian or a most excellent non-Christian and that's not relevant to the whole life/death bit. (Though the claim is you won't find a single person besides Jesus who hasn't ever given in to any temptation ... some people will ask about babies and retarded kids and such at this point. I don't know how that works, but I would generally respond that the picture that we tend to see (Old Testament and New Testament) is that God prefers mercy to just

Yeah, I'm just a stupid athiest and stuff, but doesn't this make Jesus' sacrifice, well, worthless? I mean, if he were truly 'God,' as is claimed, then his sacrifice was really nothing. 'Sacrifice' means giving something up; what did Jesus give up, if all He did was go up to heaven to stand bside His Father, casting judgement and hell upon all who do not believe in Him?

Re: 'Sacrifice' means giving something up; what did Jesus give up...? The claim is that what he gave up was unity with his father. That is, the father and the son are one in spirit, but the Son suffers disunity with his father (that's the idea behind that whole "Why have you forsaken me?" (Psalm 22:1) (Matthew 27) quotation that Jesus recites while being crucified). Since the father is the source of all life (and good, and such), the son is made to suffer the pain of death in the form of disunity with the source of his life.

Re: "...if all He did was go up to heaven to stand bside His Father..." The idea behind this is that if his death had been just, then it would have been the final word on the matter, but since his death was by his own choice as an act of mercy (a death by proxy for people who had sinned), it wasn't un-just to overturn the sentence (as it would be for someone who justly deserved death). Note that that doesn't un-do the sentence, it just ends it -- as if you pardoned someone who was on death row that you found out wasn't guilty of the crime... they still served the time, they just didn't have to serve it "forever."

Re: "...casting judgement and hell upon all who do not believe in Him..." Hell isn't actually related to the judgement (I know that's an odd sounding claim, but the bit that describes the whole hell thing is pretty unambiguous (Rev. 20:12-15):

(12)And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Another book was opened, which is the book of life. The dead were judged according to what they had done as recorded in the books. (13)The sea gave up the dead that were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them, and each person was judged according to what he had done. (14)Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. The lake of fire is the second death. (15)If anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.

Notice that everyone is judged -- people who do believe in him and people who don't. Also notice (in 15) that the criterion for "the lake of fire" is whether one's name is written in "the book of life" which is a way of saying something like "Jesus's little black book." The one set of books is what you've done, the other book is whether you believed in him. So you can be a rat-bastardly Christian or a most excellent non-Christian and that's not relevant to the whole life/death bit. (Though the claim is you won't find a single person besides Jesus who hasn't ever given in to any temptation ... some people will ask about babies and retarded kids and such at this point. I don't know how that works, but I would generally respond that the picture that we tend to see (Old Testament and New Testament) is that God prefers mercy to just

5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. "Till heaven and earth pass"

5:19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

Here's a couple - looks like Peter wrote about it, too. Also note the contrasting verses: "Masters, provide your slaves with what is right and fair, because you know that you also have a Master in heaven." and "masters, treat your slaves in the same way. Do not threaten them, since you know that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no favoritism with him."

It's an interesting topic. I in no way advocate slavery, but I completely understand the Christian viewpoint that no matter what your position, you're supposed to love your neighbor.

I am a christian and go to church every Sunday. So I will set the record straight. There are at least a few "Christians" that would threaten the same kind of violence as these Islamic extremists. Thankfully the seem to be a lot fewer of them.

I am a christian and go to church every Sunday. So I will set the record straight. There are at least a few "Christians" that would threaten the same kind of violence as these Islamic extremists. Thankfully the seem to be a lot fewer of them.

I am a christian and go to church every Sunday. So I will set the record straight. There are at least a few "Christians" that would threaten the same kind of violence as these Islamic extremists. Thankfully the seem to be a lot fewer of them.

It's pretty clear about when to stone your kids to death (alternatively: the much less fun plain KJV version)

I am a fundamentalist christian. These guys on the news are nothing more than religious nuts. Christian fundamentals do not say that we should go around condemning others. In fact, the Bible tells us not to here and here.

The so called "fundamentalists" condemn everyone around them, I think, just so that no one else sees their own sin. I use the old Catholic monarchy along with the current goings on to point out that when Christians lead, nothing good comes out of it.

Real christians don't judge. They have only two laws to follow: love God, and love man. Last time I looked, that didn't include condemning everyone around them.

I am a fundamentalist christian. These guys on the news are nothing more than religious nuts. Christian fundamentals do not say that we should go around condemning others. In fact, the Bible tells us not to here and here.

The so called "fundamentalists" condemn everyone around them, I think, just so that no one else sees their own sin. I use the old Catholic monarchy along with the current goings on to point out that when Christians lead, nothing good comes out of it.

Real christians don't judge. They have only two laws to follow: love God, and love man. Last time I looked, that didn't include condemning everyone around them.

Oh I see what you mean. That's not hypocrisy, that's conflicting orders, but only if you don't distinguish between the different types of killing. One is unlawful premeditated, and the other is lawful (there's also unlawful non-premeditated, i.e. manslaughter, but that doesn't feature in this discussion, apart from here). Different translations use different words; in the NIV, a modern translation, Exodus 20:13 uses the word "murder." The King James uses "kill", but the New King James also uses "murder." It's possible "kill" and "murder" were synonymous to the King James readers; if so the translation to "kill" would not strictly be inaccurate.

This is why reading different versions is useful, why reading an up to date version is useful, and why there are problems relying on an out of date version. Language changes; word gain different meanings over time (try declaring when happy that you feel gay for example; also try looking up "piss" in the King James verson) and so different translations of the Bible become more, or less, useful over time.

A very useful reference for comparing different versions is Bible Gateway.

It has also been suggested that certain clay substrates may have formed a biochemical "staging ground" for collecting and organising biologically significant molecules.

Interesting that it should be clay...

I am one of those Christians who has no particular problem with Darwin or evolution and wonder why the creationists/intelligent design proponents are so worried. "It is the glory of God to conceal a matter; to search out a matter is the glory of kings."

So much of this discussion has the participants shouting past each other. They are actually arguing about two different things. Science concerns itself with the "how" while religion needs to concern itself with the "why." As the two sides encroach further onto the other's domain, each sounds sillier.

Actually, the majority of modern day Christians while acknowledging the 'Old Testement' as an important part of the bible, rely primarily on the teachings of Jesus for day to day living. Perhaps the best verse demonstrating this:

Mark 12: 28 - 31
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=48&ch apter=12&version=31
  28One of the teachers of the law came and heard them debating. Noticing that Jesus had given them a good answer, he asked him, "Of all the commandments, which is the most important?"

  29"The most important one," answered Jesus, "is this: 'Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one.[e] 30Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.'[f] 31The second is this: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'[g]There is no commandment greater than these."

These words are from *The* most defining person about Christianity. Of the 10 commandments, and all the other points made in Christianity, these are the overriding ideas. Yes the bible is violent, has sexually explicit content (Song of Songs anyone?), contains predictions of damnation, riles against the sins of the unbelievers AND believers (no-one is perfect)... but the point is "Love God, Love your neighbour".

Does Islam preach similar? It hardly seems so...

If any country was a christian theocracy and ruled by the scripture in the same way that islamic theocracies are ruled by the sharia, christians would be slaying non-believers at rates comparable to the muslim protestors/freedom fighters/terrorists of today.

If any country was a christian theocracy and ruled by the scripture in the same way that islamic theocracies are ruled by the sharia, christians would be slaying non-believers at rates comparable to the muslim protestors/freedom fighters/terrorists of today.

Thanks for backing me up. Of course, you forgot to include the background verses which explains why this happened. (Jezebel provoked the situation by murdering the Jewish prophets).

I believe there is an exception to be made in the case of muslims. Violence is a tenet in their religion as reaction to many things. Hell, it is in their koran to kill blasphemers, and infidels.
I don't know of any other religion in the world, that outright preaches violence as a direct approach to anything offensive.

Leviticus 20:27
" 'A man or woman who is a medium or spiritist among you must be put to death. You are to stone them; their blood will be on their own heads.' "

Leviticus 24:14
"Take the blasphemer outside the camp. All those who heard him are to lay their hands on his head, and the entire assembly is to stone him."

Leviticus 24:16
anyone who blasphemes the name of the LORD must be put to death. The entire assembly must stone him. Whether an alien or native-born, when he blasphemes the Name, he must be put to death.

Leviticus 24:23
Then Moses spoke to the Israelites, and they took the blasphemer outside the camp and stoned him. The Israelites did as the LORD commanded Moses.

'If anyone curses his father or mother, he must be put to death. He has cursed his father or his mother, and his blood will be on his own head.

etc, etc, etc.

Repeat this experiment!

Clearly you've never read the Bible. Check out Leviticus sometime. Look at how God himself sends the Angel of Death to commit mass infanticide when he could've just teleported the Israelites out of Egypt.

Heard of punishment? Is it more just to arrest crime-committing members of opposing gangs, or "just" force them to move to different cities?

Have you ever read these "holy books"? The Qur'an in particular is clear in its message that holy war against the enemies of Islam is not only permissible but encouraged. Can you not see the difference between criticism and a call to war?

And how is this a holy war? Even secular governments know to follow basic rules such as not killing civilians for the fun of it. I would hope that with a nice "Thou shalt not kill" in the middle of it, you should know that the exemption for holy war is a very limited one.

Seriously, I'm sorry if you're a believing Christian who doesn't want to face the realities of his religion's history, but it's not my fault.

Where does the Bible call Christians into holy war? The wars of the Israelites and "spiritual warfare" do not count. Where is even the slightest justification for the Crusades?

Science and religion are polar opposites in their approaches to problem-solving that it's difficult to draw parallels between them.

Yes. To phrase it in an extreme way, science drives around looking for road signs. Religion gets out of the car and asks for directions, admitting that it's unable to find a way on its own. True, a systematic search will get you the right answer, and you can't trust any old Joe to know directions. But which is a smarter approach?

You simply deny that these passages even exist.

As do I. Here, BibleGateway has a search feature. Reply with a reference to the passages where we're told to "hate the darkies" and then I'll listen to you.

Speaking of darkies, Acts 8:26-38 shows a reference where Philip preaches to a leading Ethiopian statesman.

You can't show "infallible" scriptures to be wrong.

Yes you can. Nobody (well, nobody sane) said the text of the Bible is infallible. It's a human translation of a human translation of a human transcription of ideas that were once infallible and divinely inspired by God. Besides, Acts 10:9-16 shows God revoking the various food laws.

Under what contexts are the murder of thousands of innocent children acceptable? Or unleashing biological weapons on the entire Egyptian population? Or disrupting their water supply? Do you not see the parallels between Moses' actions and modern-day terrorism?

What about Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Was there no justification for that? What about simply going to war? You're killing enemy soldiers who were probably drafted and have no serious ideological opinions in favor of the current party.

Quite

Can you prove that there is a next life? Nope.

And in that, I concede defeat. According to Buddhism, there is no soul, no permanent self. So the age-old question is "if there is no soul, then what gets reincarnated". No clearcut answers are usuallly forthcoming from monks, though.

Apparently there do exist, or did exist, people who could determine the fate of people after they died. Alas, there does not appear a way to determine the veracity of their claims.

Still, that's no reason why any of this should prevent one seeking Nirvana in this life. And since vipaka operates in this life, it is definitely worthwhile developing good karma. No need to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=52&ch apter=14&verse=11&version=31&context=verse

the reason I consider religious beliefs to be irrational is because they are not founded on logic and reasoning, they are presupposed to be true based on religious faith. ... Well, why do you believe in God? Because the Bible says I should. Why do you adhere to the Bible? Because it was written by God.

Again, you are simply asserting that the non-God axiom is somehow superior to the God axiom. Perhaps I misunderstand, but precisely what steps of logic and reasoning would constitute a foundation for any axiom? The acceptance or rejection of any axiom is ultimately a pre-rational belief. There are plenty of people in this world who do not hold logic as an axiom at all. I find that evidence suggests they are wrong. I also find that evidence suggests the God axiom is at least as plausible as the non-God axiom. Like the Axiom of Choice, the plausibility is not one-sided but symmetric: acceptance or rejection of the axiom both have desirable and undesirable ramifications, making Occam useless.

In other words, I do not use the Bible to justify itself circularly. You seem very keen on this idea, but blind faith is actually improper in Christianity. The claims made by the Bible are, to my satisfaction, sufficiently consistent with my observations of the human condition, my research, and yes, my personal experience. (Maybe this what you meant by logic and reason?) This is not proof of an axiom but it is evidence enough to evaluate some pros and cons and come to a decision. The decision between two plausible alternatives is one way to understand proper faith -- not just in God but in all aspects of one's worldview. After all, it is strictly plausible that we do indeed live in the Matrix, but how many of us really believe that?

Further details along these lines probably don't belong in this topic, but I can open a journal entry if there is interest in continuing the thread.

nothing in Christian religious doctrines was used to provide the basis for the scientific method. The scientific method actually originates from Greece.

The roots of almost everything Western go back to Greece. :-) Thales the Milesian is often cited as a key figure, notable especially for studying and proposing natural causes for natural events. However, it's unclear how rigorous his methods were, and crediting him (as some do) with establishing the scientific method is plausible but may also be an overstatement.

Thales notwithstanding, the greatest influence on Western thought came from Plato and Aristotle. Plato divided the world into Matter and Forms, raw material ordered by rational ideas. Sounds quite scientific! But the funny thing is, Platonism rejects that avenue, teaching instead that Forms are superior to and actually more real than the visible world of Matter; this is the point of his famous shadow-puppet allegory. Matter is inferior, chaotic, and never completely obeys Form.

As a result, intellectual inquiry into Form was an exalted pursuit (familiar today as mathematical platonism), while experimental inquiry into Matter was considered unreliable and even ignoble. This dualism was absorbed fully by Augustine, and therefore went unchallenged for ten centuries. For this reason, the medieval era saw little advance in the physical sciences, as monasteries flourished in drawing the best minds to a pseudo-Platonic life of abstract Formal rumination, rejecting Material concerns.

When Aristotle resurfaced in the 13th century, it almost brought about the Renaissance, had it not been for that pesky Black Death incident. Now, Aristotle certainly advocated natural inquiry; however, his method wasn't quite scientific either. He posited Four Causes, thr

No. Just because something is derivative doesn't mean it's bad. Linux is derivitave of Unix, but to say that's it's inferiour to Unix (whatever that is) would be foolish or at least uniformed. I'm not a fan of Christian Rock (I don't like rock) either, but flaming other people for their taste in music is lame.

And also, Christians have nothing to do with MS. In fact, our gospel is copyleft (second sentance) :P

Furthermore, it is commonly known that money is the root of all evil, so

Money = sqrt(Evil)

Two of every kind of bird, of every kind of animal and of every kind of creature that moves along the ground will come to you to be kept alive.

Win/Win who could loose?

LOSE is a verb. Example: You lose your car keys.

LOOSE is an adjective (although in a more antiquated parlance--like in certain versions of the Bible--it could be a verb, but its meaning would be quite different than "lose"). Example: Your shirt fits too loose.

...on that day all the springs of the great deep burst forth, and the floodgates of the heavens were opened.

And God said, "Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear." And it was so.

That's exactly my point (which you've obviously missed)- the bible cannot be taken literally.

No, you're misunderstanding: this isn't a debate over whether the entire Bible is literal or not. Use some common sense. The Bible is full of stories, analogies, metaphors, poetry, and literal truth. Most of the time it should be pretty clear to an intelligent person which is which.

That's exactly my point (which you've obviously missed)- the bible cannot be taken literally.

No, you're misunderstanding: this isn't a debate over whether the entire Bible is literal or not. Use some common sense. The Bible is full of stories, analogies, metaphors, poetry, and literal truth. Most of the time it should be pretty clear to an intelligent person which is which.

That's exactly my point (which you've obviously missed)- the bible cannot be taken literally.

No, you're misunderstanding: this isn't a debate over whether the entire Bible is literal or not. Use some common sense. The Bible is full of stories, analogies, metaphors, poetry, and literal truth. Most of the time it should be pretty clear to an intelligent person which is which.

That's exactly my point (which you've obviously missed)- the bible cannot be taken literally.

No, you're misunderstanding: this isn't a debate over whether the entire Bible is literal or not. Use some common sense. The Bible is full of stories, analogies, metaphors, poetry, and literal truth. Most of the time it should be pretty clear to an intelligent person which is which.

That's exactly my point (which you've obviously missed)- the bible cannot be taken literally.

No, you're misunderstanding: this isn't a debate over whether the entire Bible is literal or not. Use some common sense. The Bible is full of stories, analogies, metaphors, poetry, and literal truth. Most of the time it should be pretty clear to an intelligent person which is which.

"The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands." - Psalm 19:1 (NIV)

"The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands." - Psalm 19:1 (NIV)

There is no reason to spite them just because they're largely made up of Christians.

There is no reason to spite them just because they're largely made up of Christians.

There is no reason to spite them just because they're largely made up of Christians.

There is no reason to spite them just because they're largely made up of Christians.

Ok, here is my answer. My words. It has taken some time to write this for you

1. Sin is punishable by death.
Under the Old Coventant, certain sins (i.e. breaking of God's Law) were punished immediately with death. Romans 6:23 says: "For the wages of sin is death..."

2. All have sinned
Today, none of us can say that we have never sinned without lying. Romans 3:23 states "All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God". So we have all sinned in the eyes of God. James 2:10 says "For whoever keeps the whole Law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it.". All of us have broken God's Law at some stage. One of the sins that was punishable by death under the Old Covenant of Moses was adultery. In Matthew 5:28 Jesus states: "But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart." In the same sermon (the Sermon on the Mount) Jesus equates anger with murder!

3. Therefore all deserve death!
If the wages of sin is death, and we are all guilty, then simple logic states that we all deserve death! In a few places in Ezekiel is is stated "The soul who sins shall die! Therefore all of us including liars, thieves, adulterers, homosexuals, idolators, murderers, all of us deserve death and hell. I think that this pretty much answers your question. Ever told a lie? Ever stolen anything? Ever looked at a woman with lust? What about any of the other commandments?

4. The New Covenant
But what God did to redeem the world was to make atonement for our sins by paying for it with His own blood. Under the New Covenant we do not execute the judgement of God on people, but He does. God has provided a way for people to enter into life if they will meet two (simple to understand but hard to do) conditions: to repent and believe. "Then He said to them, "Thus it is written, and thus it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead the third day, and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. And you are witnesses of these things." - Luke 24:46-48. "Most assuredly, I say to you, he who hears My word and believes in Him who sent Me has everlasting life, and shall not come into judgment, but has passed from death into life." - John 5:23

5. All sin will be judged by God
"it is appointed for men to die once, but after this the judgment" Hebrews 9:27

6. Not everyone who calls themselves "Christian" will be saved
"Many will say to Me in that day, 'Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?' And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!" - Matthew 7:22-24.

"Now the works of the flesh are evident, which are: adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lewdness, idolatry, sorcery, hatred, contentions, jealousies, outbursts of wrath, selfish ambitions, dissensions, heresies, envy, murders, drunkenness, revelries, and the like; of which I tell you beforehand, just as I also told you in time past, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God." - Galations 5:19-21.

7. By their fruit (behaviour) you will know true christians from false
"Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their f

Ok, here is my answer. My words. It has taken some time to write this for you

1. Sin is punishable by death.
Under the Old Coventant, certain sins (i.e. breaking of God's Law) were punished immediately with death. Romans 6:23 says: "For the wages of sin is death..."

2. All have sinned
Today, none of us can say that we have never sinned without lying. Romans 3:23 states "All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God". So we have all sinned in the eyes of God. James 2:10 says "For whoever keeps the whole Law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it.". All of us have broken God's Law at some stage. One of the sins that was punishable by death under the Old Covenant of Moses was adultery. In Matthew 5:28 Jesus states: "But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart." In the same sermon (the Sermon on the Mount) Jesus equates anger with murder!

3. Therefore all deserve death!
If the wages of sin is death, and we are all guilty, then simple logic states that we all deserve death! In a few places in Ezekiel is is stated "The soul who sins shall die! Therefore all of us including liars, thieves, adulterers, homosexuals, idolators, murderers, all of us deserve death and hell. I think that this pretty much answers your question. Ever told a lie? Ever stolen anything? Ever looked at a woman with lust? What about any of the other commandments?

4. The New Covenant
But what God did to redeem the world was to make atonement for our sins by paying for it with His own blood. Under the New Covenant we do not execute the judgement of God on people, but He does. God has provided a way for people to enter into life if they will meet two (simple to understand but hard to do) conditions: to repent and believe. "Then He said to them, "Thus it is written, and thus it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead the third day, and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. And you are witnesses of these things." - Luke 24:46-48. "Most assuredly, I say to you, he who hears My word and believes in Him who sent Me has everlasting life, and shall not come into judgment, but has passed from death into life." - John 5:23

5. All sin will be judged by God
"it is appointed for men to die once, but after this the judgment" Hebrews 9:27

6. Not everyone who calls themselves "Christian" will be saved
"Many will say to Me in that day, 'Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?' And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!" - Matthew 7:22-24.

"Now the works of the flesh are evident, which are: adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lewdness, idolatry, sorcery, hatred, contentions, jealousies, outbursts of wrath, selfish ambitions, dissensions, heresies, envy, murders, drunkenness, revelries, and the like; of which I tell you beforehand, just as I also told you in time past, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God." - Galations 5:19-21.

7. By their fruit (behaviour) you will know true christians from false
"Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their f

Ok, here is my answer. My words. It has taken some time to write this for you

1. Sin is punishable by death.
Under the Old Coventant, certain sins (i.e. breaking of God's Law) were punished immediately with death. Romans 6:23 says: "For the wages of sin is death..."

2. All have sinned
Today, none of us can say that we have never sinned without lying. Romans 3:23 states "All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God". So we have all sinned in the eyes of God. James 2:10 says "For whoever keeps the whole Law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it.". All of us have broken God's Law at some stage. One of the sins that was punishable by death under the Old Covenant of Moses was adultery. In Matthew 5:28 Jesus states: "But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart." In the same sermon (the Sermon on the Mount) Jesus equates anger with murder!

3. Therefore all deserve death!
If the wages of sin is death, and we are all guilty, then simple logic states that we all deserve death! In a few places in Ezekiel is is stated "The soul who sins shall die! Therefore all of us including liars, thieves, adulterers, homosexuals, idolators, murderers, all of us deserve death and hell. I think that this pretty much answers your question. Ever told a lie? Ever stolen anything? Ever looked at a woman with lust? What about any of the other commandments?

4. The New Covenant
But what God did to redeem the world was to make atonement for our sins by paying for it with His own blood. Under the New Covenant we do not execute the judgement of God on people, but He does. God has provided a way for people to enter into life if they will meet two (simple to understand but hard to do) conditions: to repent and believe. "Then He said to them, "Thus it is written, and thus it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead the third day, and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. And you are witnesses of these things." - Luke 24:46-48. "Most assuredly, I say to you, he who hears My word and believes in Him who sent Me has everlasting life, and shall not come into judgment, but has passed from death into life." - John 5:23

5. All sin will be judged by God
"it is appointed for men to die once, but after this the judgment" Hebrews 9:27

6. Not everyone who calls themselves "Christian" will be saved
"Many will say to Me in that day, 'Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?' And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!" - Matthew 7:22-24.

"Now the works of the flesh are evident, which are: adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lewdness, idolatry, sorcery, hatred, contentions, jealousies, outbursts of wrath, selfish ambitions, dissensions, heresies, envy, murders, drunkenness, revelries, and the like; of which I tell you beforehand, just as I also told you in time past, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God." - Galations 5:19-21.

7. By their fruit (behaviour) you will know true christians from false
"Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their f

Ok, here is my answer. My words. It has taken some time to write this for you

1. Sin is punishable by death.
Under the Old Coventant, certain sins (i.e. breaking of God's Law) were punished immediately with death. Romans 6:23 says: "For the wages of sin is death..."

2. All have sinned
Today, none of us can say that we have never sinned without lying. Romans 3:23 states "All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God". So we have all sinned in the eyes of God. James 2:10 says "For whoever keeps the whole Law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it.". All of us have broken God's Law at some stage. One of the sins that was punishable by death under the Old Covenant of Moses was adultery. In Matthew 5:28 Jesus states: "But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart." In the same sermon (the Sermon on the Mount) Jesus equates anger with murder!

3. Therefore all deserve death!
If the wages of sin is death, and we are all guilty, then simple logic states that we all deserve death! In a few places in Ezekiel is is stated "The soul who sins shall die! Therefore all of us including liars, thieves, adulterers, homosexuals, idolators, murderers, all of us deserve death and hell. I think that this pretty much answers your question. Ever told a lie? Ever stolen anything? Ever looked at a woman with lust? What about any of the other commandments?

4. The New Covenant
But what God did to redeem the world was to make atonement for our sins by paying for it with His own blood. Under the New Covenant we do not execute the judgement of God on people, but He does. God has provided a way for people to enter into life if they will meet two (simple to understand but hard to do) conditions: to repent and believe. "Then He said to them, "Thus it is written, and thus it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead the third day, and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. And you are witnesses of these things." - Luke 24:46-48. "Most assuredly, I say to you, he who hears My word and believes in Him who sent Me has everlasting life, and shall not come into judgment, but has passed from death into life." - John 5:23

5. All sin will be judged by God
"it is appointed for men to die once, but after this the judgment" Hebrews 9:27

6. Not everyone who calls themselves "Christian" will be saved
"Many will say to Me in that day, 'Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?' And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!" - Matthew 7:22-24.

"Now the works of the flesh are evident, which are: adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lewdness, idolatry, sorcery, hatred, contentions, jealousies, outbursts of wrath, selfish ambitions, dissensions, heresies, envy, murders, drunkenness, revelries, and the like; of which I tell you beforehand, just as I also told you in time past, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God." - Galations 5:19-21.

7. By their fruit (behaviour) you will know true christians from false
"Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their f

Here's a little riddle for you: Two kids are on the playground, and one of them is running around, pushing people over, hitting, kicking, etc. The other is playing in the sand with a smaller group of kids, interacting, using social skills such as sharing. Which one of these kids is the one which gets hit with a belt whenever he misbehaves?

From your limited "riddle", we can't know. What we do know is that the schoolyard bully is not being disciplined effectively. Often, children don't respond the same way to punishment that the parent does. Where spanking might have been the best disciplining tool for the parent, sometimes the child is disciplined best (and learns to behave best) by something like time-out. For me personally, if my father expressed disappointment in me, that was the worst punishment I could get. Corporal punishment does not make bad kids. Ineffective discipline makes bad kids.

For the schoolyard bully, it's very possible that he is beaten senseless at home for no perceptible reason (from his perspective) on a regular basis, and so is therefore conditioned to believe that pain and violence are natural, normal parts of social interaction. It's also possible that this schoolyard bully is raised by a parent who is inconsistent with discipline. The schoolyard bully could very possibly be manipulating his single mother with elaborate "i'm sorry" speeches, tears, and sniffling, and avoiding punishment at home altogether. If a child is not raised under clear, strict rules (and I'm not talking "strict" in the sense of "arbitrarily restrictive," I mean it as "firm and unyielding"), the child will learn that they can behave however they want, and use their social interaction skills to manipulate their way out of a punishment. As an example, consider a three-year-old boy that thrives on social interaction. Spankings just don't work on him (and I know a boy like this). If his parents tell him to stop misbehaving once, twice, three times, and he keeps on misbehaving, he should receive a punishment, right? Right. Now, if the parents are not strict about the punishment (e.g. he cries and says that he'll be good when they try to put him in time-out, and his parents yield to his bargain), he will continue to misbehave. If the parents use an ineffective discipline method (for this particular boy, spankings, which just make him act up even more), he will, again, continue misbehaving. If the child receives punishment without a clear explanation of why he received that punishment, he will, yet again, continue misbehaving.

Corporal punishment is not evil. The Biblical principle of "Spare the rod, spoil the child" is not wrong. If you don't punish your child for inappropriate behavior, they WILL grow up rotten. What is wrong is dealing with children without significant emotional restraint on the part of the parent or caregiver. Regardless of how upset you are as a parent, you are never, NEVER to use punishment on a child (corporal or not) for any purpose other than to discipline the child and bring him or her to appropriate behavior. If you punish a child in anger, you teach him to react in anger. If you punish a child calmly, with a clear intent, you will teach the child self-control. There is nothing wrong, in teaching, to swat a child's hand as punishment for pulling the cat's tail. It's okay to give a child a spanking for hitting his sibling and making her cry. However, it's NOT okay to swat the living daylights out of his bottom because he's pushing your buttons and frustrating you (which, by the way, will happen. That's why two-parent households are so important). It's NOT okay to punish a child over and over again without making it clear why the punishment is being administered. The right way goes like this:
"Why are you in time-out?"
"Because I told mommy 'no' w

1. In Christianity, a divine sacrifice is required to save all sinners[...]
   
   Yeah, I can see issues with this, too. However, this point of contention is regarding the movie's representation of man, not Jesus. If in fact Edmund is the only sinner, Aslan's death is still needed to atone for all sinners. If there are other sinners, it is possible that the witch was only making a big deal about owning Edmund; in either scenario, the comparison between Aslan and Christ stands.
   
   
2. Christianity's treatment of Satan[...]
   
   Aslan's death was in response to the Witch's demands only in the sense that she quoted what the "deep magic" required. As I see it, the death was required not because the witch invented the "deep magic" (since it was obviously her undoing), but because it is synonymous with the law: part of the Christian tradition is that sin must be atoned for with blood (see Heb. 9:22).
   
   
3. Jesus shows sinners a path to salvation[...]
   
   This ties in a lot with the first point. Remember what Aslan says: the reason the stone table cracked was because of his innocence. If you're in a world where people are capable of innocence, then the illustration is incomplete. If we grant the innocence of all other Narnians (the movie seems to imply that, but I don't remember the books well enough to comment on their say), this means that the whole redemption story can only exist in the microcosm of the relationship between Aslan, Edmund, and the Witch. It's not the whole movie, but it's undeniably there.

So, I agree in part. The whole story can't be directly correlated to the human condition as described in the Bible; other posters have mentioned that ths was Lewis' attempt at imagining how Jesus would have operated within the bounds of Naria. Since that requires a redefinition of the doctine of sin and man which Lewis didn't delve into in this first book, it's really hard to make a direct equation. But it's equally impossible to divorce the intent of the author from his work.

one doesn't normally associate lions with Christ, for instance

Unless of course one knows that he is called the Lion of Judah. :)

Actually, the four horsemen do not come from the ground, though I guess it could be interpreted that way. According to Revelation 6, the horsemen "appear", presumably from Heaven.

Smoke and locusts come from "The Abyss" Revelation 9

Your mileage may vary :-)